How the times have changed

Well after taking things into account from over the weekend I just want to talk about the Stuart Hogg incident, I am sorry if it has already been debated to death, but what I want to point out is that about fifteen to twenty years ago that type of challenge would have been par for the course so to speak, now before I get a tattering off people on here, I do not condone it and for me the right call was made by the officials, but I remember rugby always having sinister moments, Christ, I even remember watching a Pontypridd V Cardiff game at Sardis where an eighty year old man wanted to run on the field and hit Mark Ring for something he done that the ref did not see and the crowd were seething all game, I just wanted to point out how things have changed from the days when you could give somebody a good roughing up to put him off his game, without the video ref Hogg would not have got a red card on Saturday, and Biggar could well have had his mind else where for the rest of the game, now we are seeing more and more things that go on with all the different camera angles and the what not, although things like try or no try are seeming to be working and the fact that they could use the TMO to send Hogg off does anybody think it has taken something out of the game ? For me it has a little, but since professionalism and the players being more athletic I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play, but perhaps I am just an old romantic of the game.

I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play

The stakes are getting higher, the players getting bigger and stronger and quite rightly anything that looks a bit 'iffy' is put under the microscope.

If we played to the rules that existed in the 'good old days' where every player was a jolly good sport and played only for the love of the game, you would have hardly anyone left on the pitch and the local infirmary would be full of unconcious and broken players.

I initially thought Hoggs challenge looked 0k-ish and the Welsh lad was milking it, but when you saw the other angle, you knew that it wasn't just a glancing blow it was a solid clump and the reaction to it was genuine.

I don't thing Hogg expected it to turn out like that, but there's always the chance that when you 'put yourself about' the consequences can turn into something a lot worse than originally intended.

Does anyone have a clip if it, I haven't seen it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

I think this reflects society and the PC brigade etc - though i do think this one was a genuine Red card.

Football used to be a contact sport...it was tough...now its glorified Ballet...its a non contact sport.

I remember being in Australia saying to one of my mates dads that Aussie Rules was a tough sport...he replied its a powderpuff version of the game from 20-30 years ago.

Likewise rugby is not what it used to be...

Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere but what's the feeling over the ref using the tv replay on the big screens to change his card colour. The decision was correct but it opens up the possibility that the director (assuming he's the home teams nationality) starts showing replays of the opposition while neglecting controversial ones of his own team?

TrailApe wrote:

I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play

The stakes are getting higher, the players getting bigger and stronger and quite rightly anything that looks a bit 'iffy' is put under the microscope.

If we played to the rules that existed in the 'good old days' where every player was a jolly good sport and played only for the love of the game, you would have hardly anyone left on the pitch and the local infirmary would be full of unconcious and broken players.

I initially  thought Hoggs challenge looked 0k-ish and the Welsh lad was milking it, but when you saw the other angle, you knew that it wasn't just a glancing blow it was a solid clump and the reaction to it was genuine.

I don't thing Hogg expected it to turn out like that, but there's always the chance that when you 'put yourself about' the consequences can turn into something a lot worse than originally intended.

I to thought that Biggar was milking it at first and I said it out loud too, but then when I saw the replay I felt very silly.  

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I remember being in Australia saying to one of my mates dads that Aussie Rules was a tough sport...he replied its a powderpuff version of the game from 20-30 years ago.

I went to the first exhibition match at the Oval back in the 80s (Carlton v Hawthorn I think). Very early on there was a mass punch up involving all bar one player. The odd man out grabbed the ball, did that running bouncing stuff till just short odf the posts and kicked it through. the official on those posts indicated the score with disgust and his coach took him off.

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Hogg being sent of killed the game. It ceased to be a contest after he was given his marching offers. Essentially the game was ruined.

Hogg gave the ref no choice. Dan Biggar could have been badly hurt, I'm grateful he wasn't.

Hogg had to go, but it's important he learns from it. He's not a dirty player but reckless actions can't go unpunished.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree. There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Haway man Geordie, you can't have these lads crashing about putting shoulders into people faces - it's not like the old days when they were mostly just above average athletes, the modern players are bigger, stronger and fitter and have a lot more potential to cause real damage.

Look at the old clips of the 70's and 80's - a winger runs a try in from over 50 yards and they collapse in the try area gasping like a fish out of water - you cannot compare modern players with their forbears.

Mind you down at local level (and you have been there as well) there will still be the smack in the chops for being offside, but the ref won't have the modern aides to help him spot that and at least one of the linesman will be one of 'yours'.

So it's a many layered cake, at the top more cameras to shake a stick at and at the bottom only one pair of eyes.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree.  There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Yeah well, we'll have to disagree on that. Sending someone off so early in a match ruins a contest. Rather punish the team for 10 minutes and let the contest carry on there after and cite the player and give him a lengthy ban.

The public pays good money to see a contest, they expect a quality match.

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree.  There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Yeah well, we'll have to disagree on that. Sending someone off so early in a match ruins a contest. Rather punish the team for 10 minutes and let the contest carry on there after and cite the player and give him a lengthy ban.

The public pays good money to see a contest, they expect a quality match.

Tell me about it,  I spent over 500 quid to go down there and watch the team on the wrong end of a cricket score,  but you can't nail someone like that and get away with it.

Had Hogg smashed him with a tackled,  wrapped arms and put him on his erse  yeah a yellow.  A jumping shoulder charge to the face,  I'm sorry you deserve to be given your marching orders,.

If the ref with the benefit of hindsight thought he had to go... then there is no question I hate to say.

If it ruins the quality of the match its better that then all games filled with instances such as thus where players know there are no real consequences for taking a player out...

"I'd take 10 mins to take out their star man easy".

I can't have any complaints to be truthful.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree.  There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Yeah well, we'll have to disagree on that. Sending someone off so early in a match ruins a contest. Rather punish the team for 10 minutes and let the contest carry on there after and cite the player and give him a lengthy ban.

The public pays good money to see a contest, they expect a quality match.

Tell me about it,  I spent over 500 quid to go down there and watch the team on the wrong end of a cricket score,  but you can't nail someone like that and get away with it.

Had Hogg smashed him with a tackled,  wrapped arms and put him on his erse  yeah a yellow.  A jumping shoulder charge to the face,  I'm sorry you deserve to be given your marching orders,.

I have no issue with punishing a player, but I have a serious issue with 80 000 people having spent money and expect a contest. Even the Welsh supporters can't tell me they enjoy a thrashing like that (OK, a real rugby supporter)

But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?

[quote="LordDowlais"]Well after taking things into account from over the weekend the players being more athletic I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play, but perhaps I am just an old romantic of the game.



You seem to have forgotten Paul Ringer
[/quote]

I know what you are saying Bilt,  but surely if that's the case and the rules won't be enforced to ensure everyone gets their money's worth,  it stops being a game and becomes anarchy.

I would rather refs refereed the game with consistency,  that's the best thing they can do to please the fans.

Believe me after what I spent and what I saw it's not a great feeling in terms of value in entertainment,  but the game must be governed.  As I said had Hogg just nailed him with a late but legal tackle a yellow would have been enough. A late,  dangerous and deliberate attempt to hurt gave Garces no other choice.

I don't care at what point an incident occurs if it deserves a red card it gets a red card. Letting something the Hogg incident go with a yellow sends the wrong message. If Biggar had been knocked out the Welsh would have been forced to play with Preistland for the next 70. If the Scots then got there most dangerous attacking player back after 10 mins I would say that they would be happy.

Letting roughing up go is different from letting stuff go that could potentially cause the opposition to lose a major play maker (whether intentional or not). We are still complaining about the BOD spear tackle by the All Blacks.

The ref really didint have a choice. Hogg lost his head for a second and rightly went. I liked the fact the ref re-assessed it. Most of us thought it look nothing until we saw the slow motion.

Hogg will learn from that.

Out and out thuggery and potentially damaging foul play never improved a game, never, ever! There is a world of difference between 'making your presence felt' and maliciously engaging a player of the ball. It was a pathetic cheap shot which left the ref no choice. My opinion of Hogg went down a fair few notches. Never thought of him as a mean spirited individual and expect him not to repeat the action.

And no, I'm not over reacting or being hysterical. He made a bad choice, deserved to be sent of and should get a short ban. It was a one off I hope.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?

The red card is a problem from the perspective of when it is issued. Yes unfortunately it ruins the contest. But if we want to punish the player, then give him a red card but allow the team another player after 10 minutes.

The citing proceeds as normal and the ban is issued.

This way the contest is protected, the match is still a contest for the remainder and the player is punished.

Just my thoughts

I think the player has a responsiblity for this though. What would stop us picking Danny Grewcock from going out and injuring Lambie in a tragically successful accident? All England would get penalised in the use of a sub. Too little consequence for me.

The problem with that Bil is that some teams would pick players purely to take someone out of the game.

example England vs Wales HQ RWC 2015, England select a thug to take 1/2p out of the game he gets red carded England down to 14 for 10 mins then bring on a real player, Wales are without 1/2p who goes off injured and therefore Wales won't score any points unless they are within easy range of the posts. England win.

That wouldn't be fair.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?

Utter rubbish.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?

Utter rubbish.

Eh?

Id have thought somewhat self explanatory.

Nope.

It was just always going to be red because he only jumps after the ball is gone. I know the game used to let a lot more stuff go, but it can't now because of the increasing size, power and strength of the players in the pro era. There's a story of O'Connell doing some 'old school' sorting out of Ryan Caldwell in a training session before the 2007 World Cup. Caldwell was rucking over vigorously, O'Connell punched him in the head and Caldwell went into spasm, eyes rolling in his head, blood shooting from his mouth. He had to spend several nights in hospital afterwards. So we can't leave it in the hands of players to sort out foul play.

Some of the massive guys on the pitch nowadays could cause very serious injuries with the kind of tackle that people used to get away with. You see enough serious injuries when the game is played within the laws from the physicality.

Seven and a half

Are you saying that Tana Umaga and Kevin Mealamu Spear tackled Brian O'Driscoll early in the game because they knew that they would get away with it? If you are then tell me how do you know this?

Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

aucklandlaurie wrote: Seven and a half

Are you saying that Tana Umaga and Kevin Mealamu Spear tackled Brian O'Driscoll early in the game because they knew that they would get away with it? If you are then tell me how do you know this?

They did get away with it...   

Scrumpy wrote:The problem with that Bil is that some teams would pick players purely to take someone out of the game.

example England vs Wales HQ RWC 2015, England select a thug to take 1/2p out of the game he gets red carded England down to 14 for 10 mins then bring on a real player, Wales are without 1/2p who goes off injured and therefore Wales won't score any points unless they are within easy range of the posts.  England win.

That wouldn't be fair.

I don't jnow whether anyone would risk that though. What you are suggesting is mercenary, and I would think rather obvious.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

If it wasnt your intention, then why say it?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

 If it wasnt your intention, then why say it?

'But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?'

My intention here was to highlight the spear tackle on BOD as a famous example of really bad play which under the discussion would result in 2 players being removed and replaced. Hardly as big of an impact to NZ as the resulting injury was to the Lions. It is a well know case of foul play though which is why I wrote it.

tazfalklands wrote:I don't care at what point an incident occurs if it deserves a red card it gets a red card. Letting something the Hogg incident go with a yellow sends the wrong message. If Biggar had been knocked out the Welsh would have been forced to play with Preistland  for the next 70.........

If Hogg had actually hurt/killed Biggar then a suitable punishment would have been to make Priestland play for Scotland for the remaining 70.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

 If it wasnt your intention, then why say it?

'But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?'

My intention here was to highlight the spear tackle on BOD as a famous example of really bad play which under the discussion would result in 2 players being removed and replaced. Hardly as big of an impact to NZ as the resulting injury was to the Lions. It is a well know case of foul play though which is why I wrote it.

It wasnt foul play.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

 If it wasnt your intention, then why say it?

'But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?'

My intention here was to highlight the spear tackle on BOD as a famous example of really bad play which under the discussion would result in 2 players being removed and replaced. Hardly as big of an impact to NZ as the resulting injury was to the Lions. It is a well know case of foul play though which is why I wrote it.

 It wasnt foul play.

  Very good.

Not sure you're going to win many friends with that view point laurie! It was a very clear cut red card offence under any interpretation of the laws. But why re-open old wounds eh?

"I don't know whether anyone would risk that though. What you are suggesting is mercenary, and I would think rather obvious"

I'd say I've seen that from pretty much every country in the time I've been watching rugby - a calculated gamble to take a key opposition player out and hope you get away with it.

Sorry Notch wasn't opening old wounds just thought it was a good example.

BlueNote wrote:"I don't know whether anyone would risk that though. What you are suggesting is mercenary, and I would think rather obvious"

I'd say I've seen that from pretty much every country in the time I've been watching rugby - a calculated gamble to take a key opposition player out and hope you get away with it.

I think you have a cynical viewpoint there mate. Softening a guy or intimidating a guy early in a match is true, that is a general aim I would think, however taking a player out of the game, I haven't seen much of that, if any.

tazfalklands wrote:If Biggar had been knocked out the Welsh would have been forced to play with Preistland  for the next 70.

I think the Hogg red was around the 20 minute mark; although maybe it feels like you've played for 70 minutes instead of an hour when Priestland is at 10. The sending off did kill the game as a contest, which was a shame for all the people who had paid to go and watch, but the ref's responsibility is towards player safety and, as others have said in here, I think a yellow card would have set a bad precedent.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. I was referring to that incident as it happened early in the game and was famous. They would be able to do that with impunity under the no red cards rule. Wasn't my intention to suggest they knew they would get away with that obviously misunderstood act!

 If it wasnt your intention, then why say it?

'But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?'

My intention here was to highlight the spear tackle on BOD as a famous example of really bad play which under the discussion would result in 2 players being removed and replaced. Hardly as big of an impact to NZ as the resulting injury was to the Lions. It is a well know case of foul play though which is why I wrote it.

 It wasnt foul play.

I hope your joking...and dont actually think that way??   

"I think you have a cynical viewpoint there mate. Softening a guy or intimidating a guy early in a match is true, that is a general aim I would think, however taking a player out of the game, I haven't seen much of that, if any."

Examples that spring to mind, Wade Dooley at the kick-off against Scotland running flat out to put the point of his elbow into Doddie Weir's head from behind (Weir being a good lineout forward who would have given England a hard time, carried off and took no further part). Kobus Wiese on Derwyn Jones (the history of that being that, for the first time in ages, Wales had been competitive in Cardiff against SA in the previous game thanks to a steady supply of lineout ball from DJ) very early in the game in SA. ''That tackle" on BOD. That Aussie flanker breaking Richard Hill's jaw on the Lions tour. Obviously instances of Welsh misdemeanours slip my mind, but it certainly happens.

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

pm to you

Biltong wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo

Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree.  There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Yeah well, we'll have to disagree on that. Sending someone off so early in a match ruins a contest. Rather punish the team for 10 minutes and let the contest carry on there after and cite the player and give him a lengthy ban.

The public pays good money to see a contest, they expect a quality match.

It looked a lot worse than Warburtons red card in the world cup, which was more of a contest? A semi final or a dead rubber? The only difference here is that Warburtons tackle was, "by letter of the law" illegal.